Yes, there will be a cross-platform tie-in video game later this year.

Share this story

A trio of Gelflings must save Thra in the new Netflix prequel series The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance.

Netflix has released the first full trailer for its new fantasy series, The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance. It's a prequel to the 1982 cult classic fantasy/adventure film The Dark Crystal and features a star-studded cast that includes Sigourney Weaver as the narrating Myth Speaker and Mark Hamill—fresh off voicing Chucky in the Child's Play reboot—as The Scientist.

(Some spoilers for the original film below.)

The original film was a marked departure for Jim Henson and his co-director Frank Oz, significantly darker in tone than his previous work. It tells the story of the planet Thra, which gets its power from a magical Crystal. That crystal cracks, producing two new species: the evil Skeksis and kindly wizards called the Mystics. The task of restoring a missing shard to heal the crystal falls to a young Gelfling named Jen, aided by a wise astronomer named Aughra and his fellow Gelfling Kira. And he's on a tight schedule: the shard must be restored before the planet's three suns align or the Skeksis will rule forever.

The film struggled at the box office opening weekend, hammered by competitors Tootsie and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. But it went on to gross over $40 million, turning a small profit, and gradually became a cult favorite as new generations discovered it. The American Film Institute even nominated The Dark Crystal to its Top 10 Fantasy Films list in 2008.

Henson had plans for a feature-length sequel, The Power of the Dark Crystal, but it languished in development hell for many years. Eventually, Director Louis Leterrier re-envisioned the project as a prequel series, based on all the backstory material Henson and Oz had created for the original film. They used the "Wall of Destiny" as a jumping off point and decided to explore that early Gelfling civilization that had been lost.

At last year's New York Comic-Con, Leterrier said the series would be true to the original in the use of animatronic puppetry rather than CGI, with green screens to remove the puppeteers from the final footage. But there have been many technological advances since 1982: this new batch of puppets boasts remotely operated mechanical parts (via a modified Wii controller), and hence each only requires two puppeteers to operate rather than four.

The planet Thra in an earlier, peaceful time.

YouTube/Netflix

Behold the Dark Crystal, power-giving source of all life on Thra.

YouTube/Netflix

Looks like the Skeksis are experimenting with the Dark Crystal's powers.

YouTube/Netflix

An unfortunate Gelfling loses his essence to the Skeksis experiments.

YouTube/Netflix

A handy storage device for that soulful essence?

Brea (Anya Taylor-Joy) has a vision of The Darkening to come.

YouTube/Netflix

Mysterious ancient texts? Check.

YouTube/Netflix

Cute little furry pets? Check.

YouTube/Netflix

Creepy worm-like creatures straight out of Star Wars or Tremors.

YouTube/Netflix

Their spidey-sense is tingling.

YouTube/Netflix

Could this be skekSil, the Chamberlain?

YouTube/Netflix

Rian (Taron Egerton) is a Gelfling crystal castle guard who looks like he might lead the resistance.

YouTube/Netflix

Hopefully they'll get some guidance from wise elders.

YouTube/Netflix

Preparing to resist.

YouTube/Netflix

Behold the fires of resistance.

YouTube/Netflix

Dreaming of a better world.

YouTube/Netflix

In the new prequel, the Crystal of Truth has been corrupted by the Skeksis, and a plague spreads across Thra. It's up to three Gelflings to save it: Rian (voiced by Taron Egerton of the Kingsman series), Brea (Anya Taylor-Joy), and Deet (Nathalie Emmanuel). Per the official synopsis, the Gelflings "inspire a rebellion against the Skeksis when they discover a horrifying secret behind their power that threatens their world of Thra."

What is this horrifying secret? Judging from the trailer, it might involve using the crystal to extract the life force from Gelflings—possibly the result of The Scientist's ongoing experiments with the Dark Crystal. It's likely to bring about an ominous-sounding event dubbed The Darkening. Brea has a vision of what's to come, but her mother dismisses her fears: "You read too many stories." But she finds an ally in Rian, who tells her, "Everything the Skeksis told us was a lie, and now everyone and everything is at risk." Their only hope is... well, hope, which "catches the light, splitting the darkness, revealing your destiny."

Among the many other major names lending their voices to The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance are Eddie Izzard, Helena Bonham-Carter, Lena Headey, Alicia Vikander, Natalie Dormer, Mark Strong, Simon Pegg, Awkwafina, Benedict Wong, Andy Samberg, Harvey Fierstein, Toby Jones, Olafur Darri Olafsson, and Keegan-Michael Key. And, oh yes, there will be a tie-in video game: The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance Tactics, slated for release later this year across multiple platforms (Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, Playstation 4, Microsoft Windows, and macOS).

The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance debuts on Netflix on August 30, 2019.

Great trailer. Looking forward to this series. I'm not an enormous fan of the original movie (I much prefer Hensons other fantasy puppet feature Labyrinth) but I do find it charming and worth revisiting every few years when the mood strikes. This new series looks absolutely gorgeous and the puppetry on display is next-level awesome.

Looks great. But a bit like the Star Wars prequels, I can't help but think that the whole "resistance" is doomed to failure, considering what we know from the original movie. Looks like maybe the Skeksis might have had even worse plans than just ruling with an iron fist forever. So maybe the blocking of that effort is the "happy ending". I would have liked to have seen the original fracturing of the crystal, and the initial fallout from that.

I enjoyed the movie when it came out originally. Trying to re-watch it a few years ago, its pace was soooooooooooooo sloooooooooooow.

I'll tee it up for the Little Dude and see what he thinks.

The pacing of 80s movie is very slow. My friend brought the Friday 13th collection set. We set up a friend hangout movie night. We watched every movie, yea it is a slow pacing movies. We got impatient with the pacing. Even I watched those 80s movie lately and it is the same feeling. That why I stop at 15 min in Pet Sematary remake because the pacing is the same as the original.

Like I said the pacing is slow in those 80s movie. They like to build up suspense. It the same for that 2001 A Space Odyssey. I enjoyed the film, but damn that last 10 min of the ending is mind-numbing long! I fell asleep.

Looks great. But a bit like the Star Wars prequels, I can't help but think that the whole "resistance" is doomed to failure, considering what we know from the original movie. Looks like maybe the Skeksis might have had even worse plans than just ruling with an iron fist forever. So maybe the blocking of that effort is the "happy ending". I would have liked to have seen the original fracturing of the crystal, and the initial fallout from that.

Regrettably this. I've been kinda looking forward to this for the past few months but when watching the trailer... the tension and "dawn of the Resistance" just doesn't matter given that we already know what happens in the bigger picture. Why do these "x years earlier..." shows & movies keep getting made? IMO, go forward or don't bother.

This problem seems to be an issue in EVERY big-production prequel movie/series that's been trotted out in lieu of original storytelling. Solo? Yep, that train robbery sequence isn't very nail biting knowing that he & the wookie gotta make it through to show up in the Ep IV movies onwards. The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel Frodo's in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings. I know the STORY is chronologically set to happen in the right order, but how do you blank that knowledge of what you've already seen out enough to enjoy the "new" movie or show in its own right?

The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel [Bilbo]'s in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings.

Also, it's based on a book that was published in 1937.

Not the point I was trying to make... but for what it's worth the book "The Hobbit" (1937) came out BEFORE the Lord of the Rings (1954, I think) - so if you read them in the order published the series was a progressing story instead of a prequel.

The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel [Bilbo]'s in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings.

Also, it's based on a book that was published in 1937.

Not the point I was trying to make... but for what it's worth the book "The Hobbit" (1937) came out BEFORE the Lord of the Rings (1954, I think) - so if you read them in the order published the series was a progressing story instead of a prequel.

My issue is with all the looking backwards that's going on nowadays.

You don't think there's any thrill or drama when the eventual conclusion is already known? No Apollo 13? No Titanic? I mean sure they got home safely and the boat sank but knowing this in advance didn't make them any less exciting, no?

The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel [Bilbo]'s in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings.

Also, it's based on a book that was published in 1937.

Not the point I was trying to make... but for what it's worth the book "The Hobbit" (1937) came out BEFORE the Lord of the Rings (1954, I think) - so if you read them in the order published the series was a progressing story instead of a prequel.

My issue is with all the looking backwards that's going on nowadays.

And my point is that an adaptation of an already-existing work isn't going to surprise you with its ending any more than a prequel.

I think you're isolating the wrong variable. Most works of fiction are predictable, regardless of whether or not they're prequels. If you pick up a Batman comic, you know that Batman's not going to die, and if he does, he's going to come back in a later issue. I can tell you that Episode 9 is going to end with the good guys winning with just as much confidence as I could tell you that Episode 3 was going to end with the bad guys winning. It's not simply a matter of looking forward or looking backward; there's a storytelling formula at work.

There are good prequels and there are bad prequels. I thought Crisis Core was a damn sight better than any of the other Final Fantasy 7 spinoffs, and part of what makes it interesting is that you know how it ends. I've liked plenty of prequels over the years. Batman: Year One, Knights of the Old Republic, The Magician's Nephew, The Silmarillion, Castlevania 3...

As far as "looking back" versus "looking forward" -- every adaptation looks back at the thing it's based on. Every sequel looks back at the thing it's a sequel to. Every pastiche looks back at the thing it's a pastiche of. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, usually you've got a pretty good idea of what's going to happen.

As for The Dark Crystal: I didn't see the first movie until my late twenties, so I don't have any childhood connection to it. Looking at it as an adult, its appeal is entirely in its craft. It's all about the design, the quality of the sets, the puppets, and the immense talent of the people who designed, built, and operated them. I'm not attracted to the story, which is bog-standard fantasy unassuming-creatures-have-to-take-MacGuffin-across-enemy-lines stuff, or the protagonists, who have the Luke Skywalker problem of being the main characters and also the least interesting characters in the story.

I'm not watching a Dark Crystal movie for the storytelling, I'm watching it for the amazing visuals. And given that those are my criteria, it doesn't matter a hell of a lot to me whether the new series is a prequel or a sequel.

The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel [Bilbo]'s in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings.

Also, it's based on a book that was published in 1937.

Not the point I was trying to make... but for what it's worth the book "The Hobbit" (1937) came out BEFORE the Lord of the Rings (1954, I think) - so if you read them in the order published the series was a progressing story instead of a prequel.

My issue is with all the looking backwards that's going on nowadays.

You don't think there's any thrill or drama when the eventual conclusion is already known? No Apollo 13? No Titanic? I mean sure they got home safely and the boat sank but knowing this in advance didn't make them any less exciting, no?

Exactly. That adage "It’s the journey, not the destination, that matters" wholly applies here.

The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel [Bilbo]'s in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings.

Also, it's based on a book that was published in 1937.

Not the point I was trying to make... but for what it's worth the book "The Hobbit" (1937) came out BEFORE the Lord of the Rings (1954, I think) - so if you read them in the order published the series was a progressing story instead of a prequel.

My issue is with all the looking backwards that's going on nowadays.

It's a creative thing, but mostly a money thing.

Backstories are big these days, because they are the stories that haven't been told. They're also easy to piece together, or create from whole cloth, because you know where it's going.

In my writing, the thing that kills a promising start is an obscured vision of where it's going. I've started at least twice as many books as I've finished, all for a lack of a clear story destination. My current work is on a story that came out of left field which incorporates the elements of at least four false starts, all with a very clear destination and ending. That's actually a bit of a first for me. Most of my stories start out with a concept and no destination, with the destination becoming clear (or not) as I write.

With prequels, you know where you're going.

They've done sequels to bloody death, and reboots to bloody, pasty death. So it's time for the prequels in lieu of anything "new". "New" represents something that Hollywood avoids like the plague: Risk. The entertainment business is a BUSINESS first. So it wants certainty that a project will turn out well (aka make boatloads of money). Established franchises do that, until franchise fatigue sets in and they've still made money overall, even if the last few tank.

I wasn't a great fan of Dark Crystal when it came out, but I watched it again not that long ago and found more elements to like. Enough so that I'll certainly be watching the prequel, despite knowing how it all ends. If for no other reason than to not have my vision offended by CGI bling (God, some of the effects in these CGI movies give me migraines). The nostalgia factor is high, too, since I was enjoying Henson's offerings back in the '70's and '80's for the sheer creative genius of it. (This when I was well past the need for Sesame Street level infotainment.)

The Muppet Show still rates among the best writing and creativity I've eve seen in a variety show (or most any other show I've seen since). I just hope Age of Resistance achieves that level again and they don't phone in the story as so many "retreads" of franchises do.

The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel [Bilbo]'s in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings.

Also, it's based on a book that was published in 1937.

Not the point I was trying to make... but for what it's worth the book "The Hobbit" (1937) came out BEFORE the Lord of the Rings (1954, I think) - so if you read them in the order published the series was a progressing story instead of a prequel.

My issue is with all the looking backwards that's going on nowadays.

You don't think there's any thrill or drama when the eventual conclusion is already known? No Apollo 13? No Titanic? I mean sure they got home safely and the boat sank but knowing this in advance didn't make them any less exciting, no?

Yeah, but think about it. If Rose had just gotten on the damn lifeboat, then maybe Jack would have been able to get up on that piece of wood and they both would have lived.

But I rather liked the fact that the protagonist in The Dark Crystal not only didn't know how to fight, but wasn't expected to learn how to fight. He doesn't win by killing the bad guys; he wins by fixing the problem.

Looking at some of the comments regarding prequels and knowing where they go.

I don't think the Dark Crystal really has that problem. The original is a thin story. There's not much more to it than travel cross country and be at a specific place at the right time. Its story is the events on the journey--the set-pieces that show what can be done with puppets. The big reveal is really quite obvious.

There's an awful lot of room to develop a prequel narrative because very little is developed in the original.

The Hobbit? Kinda hard to feel [Bilbo]'s in actual peril & whatnot given what's already been covered in the Lord of the Rings.

Also, it's based on a book that was published in 1937.

Peter Jackson's interpretation of "The Lord of the Rings" was mostly brilliant, with the significant omission of "The Scouring of the Sire."

His "The Hobbit" was a self-indugent far-overlong epic mess (And that was just part 1). It's bad because it's objectivly bad, not because it came after "The Lord of thr Rings". Incidents in the book that took a few pages took seemingly 10's of minutes in the film (see the kitchen scene in part 1). Likewise, minor characters that got a mention or two in the book also got seemingly 10's of minutes (see Radghast the Red then the laternt chase of the wolves)

I will continue to treasure all four books and "The Lord of the Rings" films. However, I could not stomach seeing antything of Jackson's "The Hobbit" after the first installment. That he took such a delightful slim volume and turned it into a mind-numbingly long three part epic slog was, at best, a selfish homage to himself nad a cynical cash-grab.Cheers!

There are movies, books, actresses and I don't know what all that I'll enjoy seeing a second, third... time.There are even foods and beverages that I enjoy even though I've tasted them before.I mostly don't get the spoiler problem some people have. If knowing that the kid whispers "I see dead people" in the movie ruins it than I'm so not you because the first time I saw The Sixth Sense I kept missing parts by going "what the fuck?! this makes no sense!" 2nd viewing it was a better movie to me.If knowing "Butler in the pantry with his boyfriend" ruins the movie then it wasn't a good movie.Oh, right. Forgot ...book, actress, beverage, food.